Why do so many people accept man-made global warming as fact.?

That's a lot of questions, so I'll answer them one by one.

"Why do so many people accept man-made global warming as fact?"

Because the scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that it's true. There are many basic scientific facts which can only be explained if the current global warming is being caused by an increased greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.

For example, the planet is warming as much or more during the night than day. If the warming were due to the Sun, the planet should warm a lot more during the day when the Sun has influence. Greenhouse gases trap heat all the time, so they warm the planet regardless of time of day. Another example is that the upper atmosphere is cooling because the greenhouse gases trap the heat in the lower atmosphere. If warming were due to the Sun, it would be warming all layers of the atmosphere.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiYUr...

"When you've got people comparing skeptics with holacaust deniers"

Nobody is comparing global warming deniers to Holocaust deniers. Just because both are in denial does not mean they are equivalent or comparable.

"Common sense tells me that since meteorologist can't tell me what the weather will do next week with precision, how in the world could climatologists predict what will happen in 50 years"

No offense, but this is why scientists don't rely on 'common sense'. Climate is basically the long-term average of weather. Just like you can't predict what the stock market will do on any given day but you can be pretty sure it will go up in the long run, or you can't predict whether you'll win or lose money in a casino on a given day but if you gamble for long enough, you'll come out behind. When you average weather out over the long term, it becomes much easier to predict.

"What were the causes before man's influence? "

Solar and orbital (Milankovitch) cycles, mostly (and amplified by feedbacks like CO2).

Over the past 30 years, all solar effects on the global climate have been in the direction of (slight) cooling, not warming. This is during a very rapid period of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a...

So the Sun certainly isn't a large factor in the current warming. Scientists have also looked at the Earth's orbital cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle#Th...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207...

So it's definitely not the Earth's orbital (Milankovitch) cycles.

"isn't it a huge exercise in pompousity, to suggest that we understand or even realize all the variables in what drives the earth's climate?"

Nobody is suggesting that. We certainly don't understand the variables perfectly, but we can understand enough to realize that increasing the level of greenhouse gases will continue to make the planet warm.

"what is the perfect climate for the earth?"

There isn't one. But there is a perfect climate for the species currently inhabiting the planet. We're all adapted to the current climate, and if it changes faster than we can adapt, species will begin to die out. As species go extinct, it can screw up entire ecosystems.

"the guy that started the Weather Channel is a die-hard skeptic. Are all you believers more knowledgable than him about the data?"

Yes. I guarantee you I know more about the scientific data behind global warming than Coleman. Weathermen study meteorology, and not all of them study climatology. Most people who now work for the Weather Channel have studied climatology. Would you like to know the Channel's official position on global warming? Here it is.

http://climate.weather.com/globalWarmingStatement....

"If climatologists have such a vast understanding of the climate, wouldn't you think they would be able to control it"

We are controlling it. We're causing the planet to warm. Climatologists are telling us to reduce our fossil fuel emissions to stop causing the planet to warm. They're trying to control the climate, but people need to listen to them for it to work.

"For instance, make it rain in places that need it the most."

Again, you're confusing weather with climate.

You stirred up a hornet's nest here. So many posts with good-intentioned if flawed information. We all like to feel we're doing something good, but before you join a movement you may want to know where it's headed.

Under any treaty under discussion, CO2 levels will continue to rise and temps will increase dramatically, melting even more Arctic ice. The AGW predictions are sea levels rising up to 20-30 feet and the shutdown of thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic Ocean which could end all land-based life on Earth. If I actually thought any one of these was going to occur and we could do something about it, I'd endorse any concerted action to stop it.

However, we can't dictate to India and China and the rest of the developing world what to do. If the models show we're doomed no matter what we do, just give up. And I don't think any of those will happen because of the small amount of extra CO2 we put into the atmosphere. The very people most vocal about switching from carbon-based fuels and curbs on emissions also reject the use of nuclear energy. Solar and wind power is a long ways from feasibility.

We have the same dilemma over some of this as we do with recycling. It's a great idea but not profitable. Your best intentions won't make someone lose money to recycle your trash unless they get a subsidy to do so. What are you going to do, penalize or imprison facilities that won't do it? That's mild compared to what would be required to force people to comply with any of the treaties on the table. Who will be first to limit their energy use to 3 hours a day, fuel use to a few gallons a week, go without water most of the time? You can't have a modern world like ours without energy and their proposals will require the shut-down of most power-plants and the other curbs listed above.

Why not ask instead for legislation to set up and fund an intensive program to develop alternative energy sources. If you throw enough money at the problem maybe someone will come up with a workable fusion plant or cost-effective solar power generation. You'd better do that now before they shut out the lights and you can't use your computer anymore.

Facts are often that which is accepted by very many people as fact. This is particularly true of people who do not have personal expertise to evaluate all the variables.

You legitimately have reservations about whether all of the variables have been accounted for. That is an important part of a world of science.

Your next step is to get your theory published in a peer reviewed science journal, not a popular press that is speaking to the technically illiterate.Or failing that, you may wish to persuade the illiterate by having them read all related articles in those peer reviewed science journals. I do not mean that you should provide a precise of the works of science, but rather present the originals without comment. If said illiterates need some help in understanding what is being discussed, you may want to introduce them to several people who are qualified to at least read and understand these works of science.

One of the ongoing problems in convincing most people of your position is that even those scientists who appear to agree with you are saying that we should reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, to be on the safe side.

There are adequate explanations for previous warming periods, and you are right that they do not depend on an assumption that mankind caused this. This of itself does not imply that we can not be enhancing a normal warming process.

It would be foolish to assume that we must not be enhancing this warming process because we did not enhance it in previous warming cycles. We can say with clarity that we did not play that role during previous warming periods. But we do know that things are not identical, so we reasonably ask whether our activities might have an enhancing effect. Yes, we find, there are a few things we have been doing that would have that effect, based on our direct tests.

Science has been wrong in the past and will be found wrong in the future, so why not now?

This is no different. If someone has a contribution to the science they should publish it and convince scientists who will, as always, insist that you are a crazy heretic until a body of scientists agrees with you.

I guess it's just human nature to take things on faith, just like some people follow a religion.

You see the faithful proclaiming that 99.9% of scientists believe in AGW, although they've never seen a poll. There are polls, but believers don't seem interested in them.

Also, people believe that CO2 on it's own is enough to cause global warming. Even the most speculative climatologists aknowledge that this isn't the case. CO2 can do very little, climate change is supposed to be caused by feedback mechanisms. Whether these feedback mechanisms exist and whether their net effect is to increase warming is pure speculation at this time.

same reason man accepts what the Christian cults say the bible is all about as the only way . wen the facts of both the bible and the history of the earth both show that this will happen and it has happened before and it will happen again way after man becomes extinct . and he becomes the next natural resource .

and I am in just the right spot for this to take place it wont be too cold or to hot . and I cant wait but i can hope that it happens in my time . but lass it will not . so all i can do is sit back and enjoy the trip . man has been the Alpha for far to long and he needs a good attatude adjustment .

What part of the theory do you think is wrong? Be specific.

Skeptics like you are a dime a dozen, all saying essentially the same thing "I just know it must be wrong" and "Modeling is flawed." But when you ask them what specifically is in error with the basic theory or where climate models need to have first-order improvements made, they get strangely silent and make generalizations that the system is complex and perhaps there are things going on we don't know about and that modeling is complicated. It makes me believe your objections are based in a superficial understanding of the science. Otherwise, you would be going through the peer-review literature and trying to assemble the various bits of the theory that might possibly be in error. But alas, you aren't, the best we can hope for from people like you are a few links to websites with dubious accuracy and little content that would pass even a cursory peer-review by real scientists.

People have said the skeptics are becoming boring. I agree. Sharpen your wits and your claws. Until you can fight the conclusions in the IPCC AR4 point by point using contradicting peer-reviewed research, you have got nothing. It matters not that you think the IPCC is corrupt, most people who matter don't. Analysis like you're provided above is frivolous when I can point to the IPCC report, which is viewed as *the* authoritative document on the subject, as evidence you are wrong.

So here's a challenge to all you skeptics, because this is what you would have to do to convince people like me you know what you are talking about: take apart the IPCC AR4, starting with WG1 using peer-reviewed studies and reputable data. Reliance on websites, nitwits running around with cameras crying "urban heat island" with no data to back them up, or unsupported claims won't cut it. You'll have to fight fire with fire. Y'all think your smarter than the IPCC, prove it.

Well said. After being driven home by abc, cbs, cnn, cnbc, the NY Times et.al. what would you expect. Further the democrat leaning public schools teach global warming as fact. The public schools promote Al Gore's movie without mentioning that Al lives in a twenty room mansion in Nashville Tennessee. In the seventies we were warned about the comming global cooling! Electric batteries have made great strides from cordless power tools to automobiles. However, if you plug in your electric car at home and your home gets its power from a coal fired plant what have you accomplished? Ironicaly, those left leaning French have shown the way by leading the world in non poluting nuclear power. They started with an American design from Westinghouse and somehow have kept the crazies from blocking progress in court. Yes there is a small amount of radioactive spent fuel but that does not pollute the atmosphere.

Um, local weather and global climate are two different things. Saying that local meteorological predictions are wrong means that global climate models are wrong is like saying that because scientists can't predict the next ten flips of a coin means that a scientist that says the next 50% out of ten thousand coin flips will be heads withing a very small margin of error isn't credible. Basically you are saying you know nothing about climate science.

This is the problem with people they dont accept, of course they prefer easier lifes which most of the times tends to harm the enviroment, this is not about predictions , here scientist are not playing as fortune tellers, science is very precise and as most know everything is related to chemistry, when u mix certain components reactions occurs. Is true that warms up and coolings are part of human kind history, but each of these events were millions and millions billions of years aparts, not even the same creatures were part of each diferent changes, the exeption now, is this is going to happen sooner that is suppose to, and beside is not suppose to happen anymore, unless some external mass impacts the earth. its really complicated subject, but we need to start realizing that We are doing everything possible to make this changes worse and we are using a CATALIZER many of our daily products... garbage ...oil burners etc...

Natural things happens to the earth , but this time we are provocating these things to happen!

Open ur eyes.... learn about it.. share it with ur friends and do ur part for the good of the only planet we can life.

Personally, I believe AGW has become purely political. Politicians like the idea because it gives them an additional excuse to raise taxes, there by transferring more power to governments.

Scientist relish AGW as it provides billions of dollars to an otherwise obscure field. Imagine having a job in which you could guarantee future work if you play along. For example, the IPCC was created soloey to "research" AGW. Imagine if any of their reports stated man had nothing or little to due with warming trends. What would happen to their funding? Self preservation dictates their need to show we ar the problem.

A third group of people (activist) promote AGW as a means of squashing the competitive market (capitalist market). These individuals can be considered throw backs to the 60's. They dislike corporations, capitalism, and the USA. If you have gone to any anti-war rally, you know exactly what I am talking about. These people can be summed up rather easily as Socialist or communist, and they are pushing their agenda.

Finally, we have the sheeple. These are people who like to be part of the in crowd, thus they follow the fads like sheep. Most of your Hollywood talking heads fit into this group. They are the same ones who jumped on the pillates, Kabbalah, feng shui, Scientology, etc. movements.

I almost forgot one of the most important groups. This is the main stream media. But this group can also easily be summed up. Just refer to the paragraph about socialist and communist. They joined the movement years ago, and now try to pawn themselves off as "journalist" while continuing to spread their propaganda.

If you follow the AGW fanatics M.O, it matches completely with the socialist movement. No data, just personal attacks. Discredit your enemy, and avoid debating the merits of the discussion.

A lot of people with a lot more education than you or I have reached the conclusion its real. And the press somehow thinking it is fair to tell both sides of a story have given equal voice to about 0.1% of the scientists that they have to 99.9%. This means you get quoted about a thousand times as much if you deny than if you support.

And they seemingly have convinced you. But hey, the least you could do is burn less gas and live a little more efficiently. We don't need a climate crisis to just be smart.